"The Old Testament books to which you refer -- know in the Orthodox Church as the "longer canon" rather than the "Apocrypha,"
Fwiw, Jerome was the first person to call the books "apocrypha," though Jerome rejected them. "Readable books" would also be a term from the early Church, though again it would imply a rejection from the canon. I guess you might not like deuterocanonical either, because that would imply that they are somehow different from the rest of scripture (a "second canon"), though the Catholics don't seem to have a problem with it. Maybe that's the problem... the term is too Roman Catholic. I can see what Fr. John prefers the term "longer canon".
are accepted by Orthodox Christianity as canonical scripture.
Sort of. Everyone from Bp. Kallistos to Theodore G. Stylianopoulos to Michael Pomazansky recognize that there is a distinction between the apocryphal books and the rest of scripture, with most also recognizing that the former is "on a lower footing," or less authoritative. At best, the answer of Fr. John is imprecise and misleading.
These particular books are found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew texts of the rabbis.
Yeah. I've noticed a funny thing. The Church Fathers were nowhere near as much against the Hebrew canon as modern Orthodox/Catholics. Not only did people like Jerome think the Hebrew superior and follow it in rejecting the apocryphal books, but there was a widespread connection seen by many Church Fathers between the Hebrew letters and the size of the canon. Athanasius, for example, said:
"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews..."
This connection with a the Hebrew language (and to some extent biblical canon) is an idea also explicitly mentioned by Jerome, Origen, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Epiphanius, and John of Damascus.
"These books -- Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh -- are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the beginning by the early Church.
Completely wrong. This is totally
incorrect in more ways than one. Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, the Apostolic Canons, Amphilocius of Iconium, Rufinus, Epiphanius, John of Damascus, Junilius, and Jerome all rejected some or all of the apocryphal books. No one accepted the full biblical canon as held by Catholics until the late 4th century. No one through the 4th century included the seven Catholic apocryphal books and also things like the Prayer of Manasseh.
"The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholics accept the Prayer of Manasseh? They accept 3 Maccabees? This will be news to them!